"there's a lot of innuendo and stuff like..."
I agree. Here's some from this article:
"Just after Pellegrini's body was discovered, and while police were still on the scene of the murder, police observed two unusual incidents, Callaghan reported.
"The first involved the arrival of then-Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago – and one of the most powerful men in the American Catholic Church – Joseph Bernardin. Although there was never an indication that Bernardin met Pellegrini, he arrived at the murder scene and quizzed police personnel on the progress of the investigation.
"Left unanswered was how Bernardin learned of the killing and why he should personally visit the scene of a relatively unimportant individual whom he had no reason to know."[emphasis added]
But, we learned of Mr. Pellegrini previously in the article that, "Pellegrini had also served as chair of the Sociology Department of Loyola University of Chicago".
Now wait a minute. Was Mr. Pellegrini an unimportant person whom the cardinal had no reason to know, or was he the chairman or former chairman of the Sociology Dept at Loyola, in the cardinal's archdiocese?
You really can't have it both ways. The chairman of a department at a major Catholic university in a bishop's diocese is NOT an unimportant person. He is NOT someone that the bishop has no reason to know. Bishops have authority of those Catholic colleges and universities that abide in their dioceses. Often, the bishop is an ex officio member of the governing board of the colleges and universities in his diocese. Bishops will be made aware of high-level appointments at the colleges and universities in their dioceses. Bishops will often go to events held by these schools, and will often meet people who chair departments and things.
I don't know whether Cardinal Bernadin ever met Mr. Pellegrini or not. But I know that they likely traveled in the same social circles.
But even if the cardinal had never met Mr. Pellegrini, it doesn't seem strange to me that the cardinal would show up at the scene of a murdered senior faculty member of a major Catholic university in his archdiocese.
Then we have the case of "Agnes":
"Agnes states that in the fall of 1957, in Greenville, S.C., with her father present, Bishop John Russell of the Charleston Archdiocese and his chancellor, Bernardin, raped her as part of a satanic ritual, which included, as a RCF report stated, 'a perverted, sacrilegious use of a [consecrated] host.'"[emphasis added]
Wow. This is about as outrageous as it's going to get. But by way of evidence, we are offered the testimony of Fr. Fiore, who met her some years after the events were alleged to have occured. We're told about lie detector tests and affidavits.
Well, for accusations of this severity, I think the lady needs to come forward publicly, or needs to permit the actual primary source documentation to be publicly revealed.
Also, note that the allegation also charges that her father was present at this event. This needs to be explained further. I presume that her father is likely dead by now. But to bolster this claim, it would have been valuable to hear more of this angle. It is a very bizarre detail, and without further explanation, actually, in my own mind, detracts from the credibility of the story.
Then, we have the case of Stephen Cook:
"Bernardin, who said he had never met Cook, also left the dying man a costly chalice, which Bernardin had used to offer Mass in Cook's Philadelphia apartment. In addition to Cook and Bernardin, Cook's homosexual lover was also in attendance at the Mass. Cook made no secret of his homosexuality, and there is no indication that Cook would have hidden the identity of his male lover."
I remember at the time that Cardinal Bernadin made a number of gestures toward Mr. Cook, which appeared to my own naive mind to be acts of forgiveness and charity toward someone who had publicly sinned against him. Though Cardinal Bernadin may have never met Mr. Cook prior to the accusations, their lives were inextricably intertwined afterward. If Cardinal Bernadin were indeed reaching out in forgiveness and charity, none of his actions seem odd or out of place.
As to offering Communion to folks at a Mass, I have no idea as to the state of Mr. Cook's soul on that occasion. I have no idea whether he may have availed himself of the Sacrament of Reconciliation with the cardinal (if I had a cardinal visit my own home to celebrate a private Mass, I might beg him for the privilege that he might hear my confession). I have no idea whether Mr. Cook was at that time in rebellion against Church teaching, or whether he was struggling with the cross of homosexuality, and trying hard to amend his life, or what. And I don't think the author knows, either. It isn't a pretty thing to presume that one knows the interior state of a stranger's conscience and soul.
Lots of bad stuff has happened, about which we're learning. What we know, with sigificant verification, is awful. Let's be careful not to get ahead of the facts that are really known. Let's be careful not to connect too many dots, as sinkspur puts it, without sufficient evidence. It may be that by being cautious, we will be slow in realizing some of the sins and crimes of some in the hierarchy. It may be that some in the hierarchy will "get away with it" (at least in this life), because we have been careful.
But we know, too, that the reputations and lives of innocent, good men will be spared because we approach this mess prudently, cautiously, always being slow to make the accusation, and always willing to listen to each man's defense of himself and his actions.
If we fail to act with caution, and with consideration for the possible innocence of those accused, those who really have committed grave evil will be given the weapons they need to counterattack us. They will be able to charge that we are reckless, and have little regard for the truth and for the reputations of others. As a result, they will be able to deflect charges made against them, and keep their sins and crimes hidden and unpunished. And the Church will not be cleansed in our lifetimes, as a result.
sitetest
You put into graphic detail my unease with much of what RCF does.
There's a reason Neuhaus defends Bernardin. Maybe he's read some of Brady's stuff.
You put into graphic detail my unease with much of what RCF does...which leads me to ask, if they are the "Faithful", why are they called a "reform" group?! maybe a "restore" group would characterize them more accurately? (or NOT!)...
There's a reason Neuhaus defends Bernardin. Maybe he's read some of Brady's stuff...exactly, and eventually it will be determined which one represents the truth of the matter, which is not to say that either one is all "right" or all "wrong", but merely to say that the truth must be known before justice can be served...
The article also mentions that Pelligrini was active in the priest-homosexual club and had reported activities to the diocese. This was not exactly your average, faceless parishioner. There's such a thing as police radio transmissions. There are also "tips" which get passed between homosexuals, between police and friends. Presumably, there could be gay cops. At any rate, there's not enough information in the article to be able to evaluate the account of Bernardin's materialization at a crime scene. Suffice it to say, the guy was a pretty weird liberal activist and a pro-gay sympathizer. If anything in the article is even remotely factual, it deserves a thorough investigation by people more competent than Gov. Keating, Bennett, and the U.S. bishops. IF the allegations are just smears, they still should be investigated and put to rest.
In the opinion of police detective/profilers working on the case, the brutality and manner of the killing indicated that it was carried out either by a woman or a homosexual, Callaghan stated."
This sentence caught my eye.
Just how does a homosexual or a woman murder someone, and how does their manner of murder contrast with that of a heterosexual man??
This sentence does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that the police should report on "the facts...just the facts, ma'am", and leave speculation -- es[pecially speculation that, on its surface, is somewhat non-sensical to the airheads in the media.